Did this attempted takeover of the anti-cult group by Scientologists happen in a law school, or other educational institution, where the cooperation incentives are maximized? If you are going to offer real examples, more details would be helpful.
In the world of truly private associations (like religious congregations, or the Boy Scouts)), the right to exclude is of course a trump against any state-imposed policy of mandatory inclusion of "all comers." But that doesn't mean that a state university must recognize that right to exclude when it sets a policy about access to the forum -- in that context, nondiscrimination among groups is the controlling norm. And "all-comers" is nondiscriminatory. Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 (202)994-7053 My SSRN papers are here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg ---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 16:49:55 -0400 >From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu (on behalf of "Marc Stern" ><mst...@ajcongress.org>) >Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS >To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > >It is not true that it never happens. I think it was scientology in the >late 70's or early 80's Scientology tried to take over an anti-cult >group,invokng the Unruh Act. The California courts saw through the >effort. >Marc > >-----Original Message----- >From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira (Chip) Lupu >Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:41 PM >To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS > >This concern about associations getting taken over by hostile forces is >completely ungrounded -- it never happens, and for an obvious reason. >These kinds of fora are cooperation games -- no group is ever a majority >(even the Democratic law students at a liberal law school have a >relatively small number of active members), and every group is >vulnerable to takeover. But takeover would invite tit-for-tat >counter-takeover. CLS members could intrude on the GLBT group, and vice >versa. Everyone knows this, so all of the incentives are lined up in >ways that make this extremely unlikely to occur. (Yes, if the KKK had a >campus group, enraged others might try to "invade and destroy" the >association, but that example is sui generis, just like the Bob Jones >case.) > >If CLS had not litigated this, and had filed by-laws with Hastings LS >that said CLS was open to all comers, there is no reason to expect that >those who reject orthodox Christianity would try to join. Someone just >has to show forbearance -- either the school by allowing discrimination >based on beliefs (which could be a pretext for other kinds of >discrimination), or the groups by being open to "all comers" (confident >that the process of selecting and joining would bring them no hostile >members). In a law school, there is certainly a rational basis for >coming down on the side of non-exclusivity as a condition of access to >the forum and its privileges -- among other things, all-comers >increases the likelihood of dynamic exchange of views, something a law >school may legitimately value. CLS is not a church, and neither is >Outlaw, and yet (if Hastings prevails) both will wind up with (only) the >members sympathetic to their respective purposes. > > >Ira C. Lupu >F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law George Washington University >Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 >(202)994-7053 >My SSRN papers are here: >http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg > > >---- Original message ---- >>Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 11:47:00 -0700 (PDT) >>From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu (on behalf of Rick Duncan ><nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com>) >>Subject: RE: Factual Clarification re CLS >>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics ><religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> >> >> Interestingly, Hastings takes the position that the >> policy it is enforcing against the CLS is not a >> sexual orientation policy, but an "all comers" >> policy, a policy that forbids any group from >> discriminating against any person who wishes to be a >> member. Under this policy, an NAACP student group >> would have to admit racists as voting members and >> even leaders of the group, and the Young Republicans >> would have to allow democrats to be voting members >> and leaders. >> >> I think the school took this tack to avoid the >> viewpoint discrimination argument, but may have >> substituted an even greater problem for the one it >> seeks to avoid. >> >> The school may even lose Justice Breyer, who in the >> oral argument referred to the policy as >> "fantastical" and as creating a silly kind of forum >> in which "everyone gets together in a nice >> discussion group and hugs each other." >> >> That led Mike McConnell to conclude that the policy >> does not even provide a rational basis for excluding >> a student group from a forum with the stated purpose >> of creating a diverse marketplace of ideas. As Mike >> put it, the all comers policy does not even slightly >> advance the stated purpose of the forum, and indeed >> is destructive of that purpose by prohibiting groups >> from having a membership policy based upon its >> organizing principles and beliefs. >> >> Rick Duncan >> Welpton Professor of Law >> University of Nebraska College of Law >> Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 >> >> "And against the constitution I have never raised a >> storm,It's the scoundrels who've corrupted it that I >> want to reform" --Dick Gaughan (from the song, >> Thomas Muir of Huntershill) >>________________ >>_______________________________________________ >>To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >> >>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly >or wrongly) forward the messages to others. >_______________________________________________ >To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly >or wrongly) forward the messages to others. >_______________________________________________ >To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. > Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people >can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward >the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
